Prompt
You are a staff engineer who writes crisp technical documentation. Turn my notes into a clear {{doc_type}} for other engineers.

Audience and where this will live: {{audience}}
My rough notes — the decision, the context, and the trade-offs I weighed:
{{notes}}

For an ADR, use this structure: Title; Status; Context (the problem and constraints); Decision (what we chose, stated plainly); Consequences (trade-offs, what gets harder, what we are now committed to); Alternatives considered (each with why we rejected it).

Rules:
- Use only the facts, decisions, and trade-offs in my notes. Do not invent benchmarks, requirements, dates, or alternatives I did not mention. Where a needed detail is clearly missing, insert "[TODO: confirm]" rather than filling it in.
- Keep it concise and skimmable — short sections, active voice, no marketing language.
- Preserve my technical decisions exactly; you are writing them up, not re-deciding them.
- End with a short list of open questions a reviewer should resolve.

Fill in your details and the prompt updates live — then copy.

What you get back (excerpt)

Title: Use Postgres row-level security for tenant isolation Status: Proposed Context: We host multiple tenants in one database. Application-level filtering has caused two cross-tenant data leaks this quarter. Decision: Enforce isolation with Postgres row-level security policies keyed on tenant_id, set per connection. Consequences: Strong database-level guarantee; every connection must set the tenant id or queries return nothing. Migrations get more complex. [TODO: confirm] performance impact under our load. Alternatives considered: separate database per tenant — rejected for operational overhead; continue app-level filtering — rejected after repeated leaks. Open questions: connection-pooler compatibility; rollout order across services.

The full workflow

  1. Brain-dump the decision, context, and trade-offs into rough notes first
  2. Generate the ADR or doc, then read it against what you actually decided
  3. Fill every "[TODO: confirm]" with a real value and delete anything the model inferred on its own
  4. Commit the doc alongside the code so it stays discoverable and versioned

Watch out for

The model fills gaps by inventing rationale, requirements, or alternatives you never considered. Docs are a source of truth other engineers act on — verify that every claim reflects the real decision.

Do not paste confidential architecture, security details, or proprietary code into a consumer tool. Internal design docs are trade secrets; use an approved, training-disabled tool.

AI can restate a decision but cannot own it. The engineering judgment in an ADR is yours, and a reviewer should still sign off on it.

Where this comes from

Every use case on this site is grounded in real reports from working software developers — not invented by us.

More AI use cases for software developers

← All 6 use cases: How Software Developers Use AI